A reminder of what caused the economic collapse of 2008: Democrat policies

[Truthmatters]

SEC Speech: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Seven Years Later; Washington, D.C.; September 21, 2006 (Christopher Cox)

 

[Little-Acorn]

.



The buildup to the largest, deepest, widest and most complicated financial meltdown ever was due to far more than the actions of one political party.

That's the usual dodge thrown up by Democrats after it's been demonstrated that they blew it, and got caught.

But in fact, as extensive videos and references show, It was Democrats who were almost exclusively behind efforts to expand the number of mortgage loans to people who were considered risky borrowers, and drive the program nationwide to get votes; and throttle Republican attempts to sound alarms, regulate the process, etc.

 

[Truthmatters]

dear idiots did yiou not read the part that shows the subprime was sold overwhelmingly to people who were refinacing a home they already owned?


It was a scheme designed to strip the equity in people homes you fools.

It worked and you nimrods are defending the scumn who did it.

grovel at the feet of you masters fools

 

[Mac1958]

.



The buildup to the largest, deepest, widest and most complicated financial meltdown ever was due to far more than the actions of one political party.

That's the usual dodge thrown up by Democrats after it's been demonstrated that they blew it, and got caught.

But in fact, as extensive videos and references show, It was Democrats who were almost exclusively behind efforts to expand the number of mortgage loans to people who were considered risky borrowers, and drive the program nationwide to get votes; and throttle Republican attempts to sound alarms, regulate the process, etc.

I'm not a Democrat, but I am a financial advisor, CFP ChFC CLU 7/65.

Yours is a shallow, simplistic, transparently partisan argument.

Have fun with it.

.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did the Clinton SEC hold back the regulations for the first 14 months of those 8 years?

prove what you claim.

that law did not take effect then you fool

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



enacted November 12, 1999

you just did it for me!

Now explain who held back the broker rules in this Bill?


go get the filings on that little boy.

It was NoT the Clinton admin that fought the broker rules in the law

 

[Rat in the Hat]

prove what you claim.

that law did not take effect then you fool

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



enacted November 12, 1999

you just did it for me!

Now explain who held back the broker rules in this Bill?


go get the filings on that little boy.

It was NoT the Clinton admin that fought the broker rules in the law

It was the Clinton SEC who didn't bother starting the broker rules for the first 14 months after the bill was enacted.

Why did they do that?

 

[Freemason9]

Actually, the economic collapse was the result of increasing wealth disparity/concentration in the U.S.--just like the continuing series of periodic, deep recessions we've experienced since Reagan shackled the working class with "supply side economics" in the 1980's.

It's all about concentrated wealth, and a bankrupt middle class in America.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope you fool.

prove your claim.

who was it that filed against the broker rules?

 

[Truthmatters]

NCRC COO Addresses Attendees at NAACP?s 99th Annual ConventionOrigins of the Subprime Crisis and Need for Intervention
Many observers argue that the subprime market’s foreclosure crisis is a result of moderate-income minority borrowers getting into trouble by over-extending themselves to purchase a home. But when you hear those arguments, consider these words of the rap group Public Enemy, “Don’t believe the hype”!

First, most subprime loans originated for at the past decade were for refinancing homes. Second, according to the Center for Responsible Lending, less than 10 percent were for first time homeownership. These statistics together mean that much of the subprime market damage was due to mortgage refinancing schemes that took advantage of financially vulnerable families who already owned their own homes and had already accumulated equity in their properties. Subprime lenders targeted those consumers to structure financing deals that literally flipped the equity away from their owners. And, for first time homeowners, they simply were exploited to the limits of their financial vulnerability.

Much of the resistance from policy makers to assist homebuyers going to foreclosure is the concern about creating “moral hazard”. This idea implies that bailing people out of problems that resulted from bad or risky decisions may encourage them to make those bad decisions again.

Let’s examine the bad decisions made by millions of families caught up in this foreclosure crisis.

They made the bad decision to trust their broker to be honest and help them secure the best loan for their circumstances;

They made the bad decision to trust their lender would offer them a product that was affordable to them;

They made the bad decision to trust the appraised value of their home was legitimate;

They made the bad decision to trust the regulatory supervision of the financial institutions to protect their rights as consumers;

In short, borrowers in the subprime market made the bad decision to trust that they would be treated with the same respect and protections as is the norm for the overwhelming majority of Americans who enter into homeownership through the prime market.

A moral hazard? But not in the classical economic meaning.

 

[Truthmatters]

They refied people they new they could later strip of their homes at a profit

 

[Truthmatters]

you lap dogs did this to the country

 

[PoliticalChic]

The recession was caused by the lack of oversight by the GOP who controlled by Congress, minus the Senate for one two-year term, from 1994 to 2006, with one Dem and one Pub president in their pockets.

The GOP is at fault, and that is how it is taught overwhelmingly in high school and college courses.

We can never let the neo-econs any more than the neo-cons or the social traditionalists control our GOP politics ever again.

Actually, the root cause was Democrat FDR ignoring the United States Constitution, the document he has sworn to uphold, and dabbling in the private housing market via Fannie and Freddie.

Had he not done so, there would not have been a financial meltdown.

I suggest you read the Constitution prior to posting again.
It would save future embarrassment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you lap dogs did this to the country

Surely you aren't referring to the country in which the Constitution is the law of the land.

Such a country would have impeached a President who infracted said law.....i.e., FDR.

 

[Truthmatters]

How many of you KNEW the subprimes were nearly ALL refis?

 

[jwoodie]

.



The buildup to the largest, deepest, widest and most complicated financial meltdown ever was due to far more than the actions of one political party.

That's the usual dodge thrown up by Democrats after it's been demonstrated that they blew it, and got caught.

But in fact, as extensive videos and references show, It was Democrats who were almost exclusively behind efforts to expand the number of mortgage loans to people who were considered risky borrowers, and drive the program nationwide to get votes; and throttle Republican attempts to sound alarms, regulate the process, etc.

I'm not a Democrat, but I am a financial advisor, CFP ChFC CLU 7/65.

Yours is a shallow, simplistic, transparently partisan argument.

Have fun with it.

.

Interestingly, you do not refute its accuracy.

 

[Truthmatters]

They refied people tellin them when they sold them later the price would jsut keep going up forever so it was just barrowing from themselves in the future.


They then LIED again by rolling these turds into securities without telling those buyers.

Its been proven folks.

There are lawsiuts to prove what they did.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Isn't it entertaining to watch little truthmatters go ballistic when Democrats are revealed as the perpetrators behind the 2008 financial crisis? He's spewing dozens of posts, not waiting for replies, calling everyone names, changing the subject, and ignoring what was cited to show his party's guilt.

More fun than a barrel of monkeys.........!

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".

And now they are starting to do all these same things again.

The hits just keep on comin'!

 

[Truthmatters]

They could do all this lying and rolling becuase the day to day Brokers they had were left UNREGULATED by the Bush SEC right up until a couple of days before the crash

 

[Truthmatters]

Isn't it entertaining to watch little truthmatters go ballistic when Democrats are revealed as the perpetrators behind the 2008 financial crisis? He's spewing dozens of posts, not waiting for replies, calling everyone names, changing the subject, and ignoring what was cited to show his party's guilt.

More fun than a barrel of monkeys.........!

refute the facts Im giving you barney fife

 

[Truthmatters]

How much of the subprime was refis?